A Sabbath Day's Journey

By: Rev. Paul Landgraf

What is a Sabbath day's journey? First of all, it is a Jewish expression. We measure distances in meters or yards. The Jews had a certain distance that they could walk on Saturday before it would be considered work. So their synagogues that they went to on Saturday could not be very far away. The word appears only in Acts 1:12 and indicates a distance of about three-quarters of a mile.

With that in mind, I think it is important to remember the origins of Christianity. Just because we have an Old Testament, it does not mean that we call it the 'Outdated Testament'. Much of the Old Testament has a literary structure that we are not aware of because of our modern emphasis on chapter and verse divisions. Within many of these blogs, I try to get the reader to see a bigger picture, a larger perspective that often includes the Old Testament and the environment that was present when the New Testament was seeing the Light of the day.

Second, a Sabbath day's journey is intentionally short. These 'journeys' with a text, almost always one of the three readings for that Sunday, are deliberately brief discussions. This blog was never designed to be a comprehensive look at any text. Sometimes a specific word is studied in detail. But, as a whole, a blog entry, by itself, is meant to be quite brief.

Finally, since the term 'Sabbath day's journey' appears in Acts, it is meant to appeal to a wide variety of people. This blog is meant for those who cannot come on Sunday mornings. And it is also for those who do come on Sunday mornings but would also like a further study of the text. It is also for those who live somewhere else in the world (besides Drake and Freedom, Missouri, USA) and would simply like a further study of the text. It was meant to get these different groups of people to start thinking about the biblical texts. Part of the reason for this blog is that I am not able to have a bible class on Sunday mornings with either congregation, and so, to have a blog like this seemed like a good idea. I hope it is helpful for you, in whatever situation you may be.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. And thank you for taking the time to read this!

This Sunday is Pentecost Sunday, and this starts the second half of the church year. But you might be able to guess that the focus is still on Jesus.

When Jesus was ready to teach, he would first sit down. Early within the second reading, the reading from the book of Acts [2:1-21], the verb ‘to sit’ comes up twice. Here is a somewhat- literal translation of the first three verses:

And in the completion of the day of Pentecost, they [the apostles] were all as one, as the same. And it happened suddenly, out of heaven, a sound as of a forceful wind being carried, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them, being distributed, tongues as of fire, and it sat on each one of them….

Before you think it was just a coincidence that the same word comes up twice in two sentences, I would encourage you to think about the last time someone was doing some sitting, not only in the Acts of the Apostles, but also what happened before that, what is given in the Gospel according to Luke.

First of all, please notice the contrast of that account with the other accounts. In the Gospel according to Matthew, on Easter Sunday, an angel of the Lord rolls the stone away and sits on it (28:2). In the Gospel according to Mark, also on Easter Sunday, an angel is inside the tomb, sitting on the right (16:5). In the Gospel according to John, on Good Friday, Pilate is described as sitting on a judgment seat (19:13). But in the Gospel according to Luke, the last time someone is described as sitting is all the way back in 22:69. Jesus is speaking before the Sanhedrin and is talking about himself. Here, again, is a somewhat-literal translation of that text:

‘But from now the Son of Man will be sitting at the right of the power of God.’

There are other body positions of other people within these last chapters of the Gospel according to Luke and the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. The closest anyone comes to sitting is the ‘reclining’ at table that is done at Emmaus on Easter Sunday (Luke 24:30). A suggestion for a bible study would be to read from the beginning of Luke 22 to the end of Acts 2, to find all the uses of sitting (and other body positions) that are mentioned. Such a study would also help to see the transition between that gospel account and the book of Acts.

Why were the apostles sitting in Acts 2? The easiest answer is that they were told to do that. In Luke 24:49, Jesus tells them, literally, to sit in the city of Jerusalem until they are clothed with power from a high place. (The English translations usually use another word.)

An answer to that last question that is a little more complicated is that sitting is an important position in ancient times. Here are some things that are mentioned in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [published by Eerdmans in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1965] regarding the verb ‘to sit’.

By far, the biggest section when dealing with the idea of sitting has to do with ‘a mark of particular distinction’. And of the four types of people with authority who are mentioned (gods, rulers, judges, and teachers), the most unfamiliar to present-day society are those of gods and rulers; so here are just a couple quotes from those sections:

‘Archaeological material from Egypt, the Near East and the Greek Hellenistic world shows that sitting is a distinctive sign of deity. The god often sits while men stand to pray before him. In the early period of Israel’s history the ark represented God’s throne…[volume 3, page 441].’

Throughout antiquity there is a close connection between the god and the ruler, whether in personal or institutional terms. This helps us to see why in archaeology and in literature rulers are enthroned like the gods. Even in the OT the throne is the particular prerogative of the ruler…[volume 3, page 442].

In other words, sitting is a very important position, and the apostles were very important people.

A more interesting question may be: Why are the tongues as of fire described as sitting? Obviously, those tongues have some authority as well. They are connected to the wind, which is the same word as ‘spirit’. This is the Holy Spirit coming down, and this was predicted by Jesus.

Another related question might be this: Where were the tongues of fire on the bodies of the apostles? Most pictures have them on the tops of their heads. For many years, one of my favorite woodcuts from the time of the Reformation was included in the Australian Lutheran edition of Luther’s Large Catechism. Included in this blog is a picture of that woodcut, by Lucas Cranach the Elder in 1527. [Anniversary Translation and Introductory Essay by Friedemann Hebart, published by Lutheran Publishing House, Adelaide, 1983; this work celebrated the 500th anniversary of Luther’s birth; the woodcut appears on page 118.]​

​

​This picture, as you hopefully can see, has the tongues of fire coming out of the mouths of the apostles. That certainly is different. And this difference is a good reminder of the authority that comes with words, especially the Lord’s words. The Lord breathed on his disciples at the end of the Gospel according to John (20:22), and that breath and the wind and the Holy Spirit all go together. Related to that is the fact that someone who had authority over someone else might have his foot upon the other’s neck (see Joshua 10:24). The message of a picture like that is quite clear.

Other pictures have the tongues of fire on the tops of their heads. That can work as well. The heads of all the apostles—as well as of pastors—are sinful heads. But the words that are given out by those people at various times are very special, and those words ultimately belong to someone else.

The First Reading for this week, the Seventh Sunday of Easter, is Acts 1:12-26, and this is the only time and place you will hear the expression, ‘a Sabbath day’s journey’. This text is always the first reading, no matter what year it is of the three-year series, and verse 12 of the text, the verse that contains that phrase, goes this way (in a very literal translation):

Then they [the apostles, the ‘men of Galilee’] returned into Jerusalem from the mount of the one being called the olive grove, which is near Jerusalem, having a way of a sabbath.

Since this blog has that name, I thought it would be good to look into that phrase a little more closely. There are some things in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia [published in 1988 by Eerdmans in Grand Rapids, Michigan] that were new to me:

The distance the rabbis allowed a Jew to travel on the Sabbath without breaking the law. The phrase occurs only in Acts 1:12, where it describes the distance the disciples traveled when they returned from the Mt. of Olives to Jerusalem after the Ascension. Defining travel as work proscribed on the sabbath (cf. Ex. 16:27-30), the rabbis limited such travel to 2000 cubits (3000 ft. [914 m.] by Hellenistic measure, 3600 ft. [1097 m.] by Roman measure) from one’s domicile. The figure seems to have been based on Josh. 3:4, which says that the distance between the ark and the people during the wilderness sojourn was 2000 cubits. Here it was assumed that this was the distance necessary to attend worship in the tabernacle, and that such necessity legitimated the distance involved. We do not know when this interpretation was finalized, but it seems to have been accepted by the time of Christ. Later Jerome (Ep. To Algarsiam x) stated that a sabbath day’s journey was 2000 ft. (610 m.); according to the Egyptian measure it was 1000 double-steps.

In any case the scribes invented ways to increase a sabbath day’s journey up to a distance of 4000 cubits. One could deposit food at the 2000-cubit limit before the sabbath began and declare that spot a temporary home, or one could select a tree or a wall 2000 cubits from one’s true residence and declare this one’s home; thus one could travel an added 2000 cubits on the sabbath. Again, one could declare the whole town in which one dwelt one’s domicile, and so journey 2000 cubits beyond town limits from any point in the town. Boundary stones, supposedly marking such village limits, have been found near Gaza. Rabbinical interpretation sometimes understood Nu. 35:5, which measured the suburbs of Levitical cities as 2000 cubits, as also bearing on a sabbath day’s journey [volume 4, page 252].

The attempts to get ‘around’ that limit are interesting. But that is nothing new. There are new ‘laws’ that are attached to this new virus that are being questioned by some and wholeheartedly rejected by others. People enjoy freedom, but true freedom only comes from the gospel of Jesus Christ (for more detail on this, see the 1520 writing of Dr. Martin Luther, The Freedom of a Christian; this year is that writing’s 500th anniversary, and the document merits some serious attention; also, there are a substantial number of bible verses mentioned within the document, and the reading of it could be considered a bible study).

To get back to the subject, this phrase, ‘a Sabbath day’s journey’, did not have to show up at all in the New Testament. The distance could have been measured in stadia, as it is done other times. And it was not even the Sabbath when Jesus ascended!

This phrase prepares the reader and/or listener for a Jewish perspective on the Jesus story. That is what we have pretty much throughout the work. Even though in Acts 13:46 Paul states that ‘we are turning toward the Gentiles’, they continue to go to synagogues. Even in Rome, at the end of the book, Paul speaks to ‘the first [i.e., the leaders] of the Jews’. And, at the VERY end, he is described as ‘proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness unhindered (Acts 28:31).’ There is no more talk of limits with THAT text.

Last week we were at Acts 6 & 7, and this week, we are at Acts 17[:16-31]. Obviously, that is a significant jump. And the next Sunday after that, after the festival of the Ascension of Our Lord, we will jump back to Acts 1, waiting for Pentecost on that next Sunday. There is certainly a lot of jumping around in the book of Acts. And there is certainly a danger in not seeing the forward progression within it.

I mentioned last week that the first time the word gospel is used as a verb is right before the text for that Sunday in Acts 5:42. And the last time the word gospel is used as a verb is in the text for today. Lots of things have happened between those two readings, and it may be helpful to take a closer look at the progression going on there.Here are all the verses in the book of Acts that have the word ‘evangelize’ in it somewhere. Please try to note the words that are connected to it in some way. Those words are very important, since that word ‘evangelize’ is strongly connected to that EXTREMELY important word, gospel. The following translations are somewhat literal; I have added references to help in understanding:

Acts 5:42 And every day in the temple and according to house, they [the apostles] did not cease teaching and evangelizing the Christ Jesus.

Acts 8:12 But when they [the people in Samaria] believed Philip, evangelizing the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:25 They [Peter and John], therefore, having solemnly witnessed and having spoken the word of the Lord, returned into Jerusalem, and they evangelized many villages of the Samaritans.

Acts 8:35 And Philip, opening his mouth and beginning from this scripture, evangelized to him [the Ethiopian] Jesus.

Acts 8:40 But Philip was found in Azotus, and passing through, he evangelized all the cities, until the coming of him into Caesarea.

Acts 10:36 [Peter said: This is] the word which he [God] sent to the sons of Israel, evangelizing peace through Jesus Christ—this one is Lord of all.

Acts 11:20 But, on the other hand, there were some of them, men, Cypriotes and Cyrenians, who, coming into Antioch, spoke also to the Hellenists, evangelizing the Lord Jesus.

Acts 13:32 [Paul said:] And we ourselves evangelize to you the promise having come to the fathers.

Acts 14:7 And there they [the apostles, Paul and Barnabas] were evangelizing.

Acts 14:15 And [they, the apostles, Paul and Barnabas] were saying, ‘Men, why are you doing these things? We ourselves are also of like nature to you humans, evangelizing to you to turn from these vanities to the God, the living One, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all things in them.’

Acts 14:21 And [Paul and Barnabas] evangelizing that city [Derbe] and having made many disciples, they returned into Lystra and into Iconium and into Antioch.

Acts 15:35 But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and evangelizing, with also many others, the word of the Lord.

Acts 16:10 And as he [Paul] saw the vision, immediately we sought to go out into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to evangelize them.

Acts 17:18 But some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers fell in with him, and some were saying, ‘What does this “seed-picker” wish to say?' but others, ‘He seems to be an announcer of strange deities,’ because he evangelized Jesus and the resurrection.

I realize that is a significant amount of reading, especially for only ‘A Sabbath Day’s Journey’ with a text. Good job if you made it all the way through! If you simply passed most of that by, that is also fine. A bible study idea for this week might be to look carefully at each of these verses. And it might be helpful to think of these verses as a type of dictionary to the word ‘evangelize’ in Acts.

Perhaps you noticed that there are only two times that another verb is placed next to the verb ‘evangelize’, and it is the same verb both times. In Acts 5:42, the text says that the apostles did not cease teaching and evangelizing the Christ Jesus. And in Acts 15:35, the text says that Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and evangelizing the word of the Lord with many others. Teaching was an important job of Jesus, and he gives that important job to his followers (see Matthew 28:19-20). The gospel is also an important thing being given.

So, there is a significant similarity in these two verses, and there is also a significant progression; the direct object of ‘evangelizing’ is different; there is a change from ‘Jesus Christ’, to ‘the word of the Lord’. The title ‘Christ’ tends to look back at the Old Testament, that someone was anointed (christened) to do a special job. With the title Lord, we are pointed forward, that Jesus is the Lord over death; that was his title especially after his resurrection. Words are also important, and they continue to be important today.

I think it is significant that this change happens after the gospel is clarified, and that happens in Acts 15. Obviously, the change has something to do with Jesus. But he is not primarily the example; he is not the cheerleader; he is not even the Helper (this title appears in the Gospel according to John, but that account is designed to accompany the other accounts as well where his main task has already been given). Jesus rescues; he saves; he does what his name says (see Matthew 1:21).

In Acts 15, the gospel is clarified with words. I may have mentioned another time that the only two times that the word ‘gospel’ appears as a noun is in Acts 15:7 and Acts 20:24. It is worth repeating that again. In Acts 15:7, Peter uses that word gospel at the beginning of his speech, and, at the end of his speech, he says that we believe we are saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 15:11). Could it be any clearer? And the Acts 20:24 verse reminds us of how important that gospel was in the life of Paul.​It is nice to hear that gospel again and again. There is a lot of bad news within the world (even without talking about viruses) and even within ourselves. The good news of Jesus’ death on the cross for sin is at the heart of the gospel, and those words should have the final say.

Our Easter journey continues in the book of Acts. Although at the end of the Easter season, the focus will be on Acts 2 and Pentecost, this Sunday, the Fifth Sunday of Easter, we continue in the book of Acts with a reading from the sixth and seventh chapters [6:1-9; 7:2a, 51-60]. This is one of the very few times that the reading is from three different places. With such a text, it is easy to lose the context. A simple bible study suggestion for this Sunday might be to read Acts, chapters 5 through 8.

What can we say about these seven ‘deacons’ who are installed at the beginning of chapter 6? The first thing to say is that they are never called deacons! Philip is eventually called an evangelist though (see Acts 21:8). And it may not be a coincidence that the first mention of ‘evangelizing’ in the book of Acts is found in the verse right before Acts 6:1. This is the important word ‘gospel’, but as a verb. (Without the division of chapters, it is easier to see the context.)

Here is that text of Acts 5:42 in a somewhat-literal translation:

And every day in the temple and from house to house, the apostles did not cease teaching and evangelizing the Christ Jesus.

Incidentally, the very last time this important word ‘gospel’ appears as a verb in Acts is at 17:18, and that will be part of the Acts text for this next Sunday.

It would be good at this place and time to remember that the word ‘gospel’, in the Old Testament, meant the delivery of important news from one significant place to another, such as from the battlefield to the king. The messenger would deliver the news of victory or defeat. In other words, this is very important stuff being said.

This context may put the problem of these Hellenistic widows being ‘overlooked’ in a different light. (By the way, the word ‘overlooked’ is a literal translation, and the Greek word is found only here in the New Testament; its use may hint at a unique situation; and it is a good thing also to know that the word ‘Hellenistic’ is a description of a Greek-speaking Israelite.) Many people have understood this overlooking to mean that these women are simply without food. This is certainly possible. But what could ALSO be happening is that, because they are widows, they are without a man of the house to be the religious leader for them. And because they speak Greek, they may be wanting to hear some Greek words about Jesus.

The twelve disciples were probably giving Jewish-Christian widows a LOT more words than they were giving the Hellenistic widows. Could this be the meaning of being ‘overlooked’?

The job of these seven is not given in any detail, but they all have Greek names. The twelve called together the multitude of disciples and said it in this way, that they do not want to ‘leave behind’ (an even more literal translation would be to ‘leave down’; the ESV has ‘give up’) the word of God and serve tables.

The use of ‘word of God’ is interesting here. It is used primarily in the early chapters of Acts, and this is when there is more of a Jewish context. Eventually the phrase, the ‘word of the Lord’ will be used in Acts, and it is usually used within a more non-Jewish context.

If you are interested in learning more about this, in Acts 13 there are multiple uses of both phrases ‘word of God’ and the ‘word of the Lord’. Below are the verses, the phrase used (either ‘word of God’ or ‘word of Lord’), and its context. Another bible study idea would be to read through this entire chapter.

13:5 word of God … what was announced in the synagogues to the Jews13:7 word of God … what an ‘intelligent’ man wanted to hear…13:44 word of Lord (but ‘word of God’ in some manuscripts) … what ‘all the city’ assembled together to hear13:46 word of God … what Paul and Barnabas had first said to the Jews13:48 word of Lord (but ‘word of God’ in only a few manuscripts) … what was glorified by the nations [This is certainly unusual, to glorify the WORD of the Lord rather than simply the Lord; this may be the reason there are some more differences between the various manuscripts.]13:49 word of Lord … what was carried through all the country

Some of the manuscripts have the other option (of ‘word of God’) two times above, and this alternative may be for a more Jewish reader. If this Jewish emphasis of a manuscript is of interest to you, please check out volume 1 of the 4-volume work, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae, by Josep Rius-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, published by T & T Clark in 2004, pages 37-40.]

Hopefully a careful look at chapter 13 was helpful in seeing that the use of ‘word of God’ is closer to what the twelve disciples did with Jesus, while the ‘word of the Lord’ is what those who are sent out are doing with the non-Jews.

The twelve do not want to ‘leave behind’ the words that they were speaking with Jewish-Christian widows. If they would go to the Hellenistic widows’ homes, they were probably not saying as much as when they were in Jewish widows’ homes. In a sense, they may have felt as though they were just 'serving tables'.

What are these seven men called to do? If it is simply to hand out food, why did Stephen get into so much trouble? It seems that these seven are given a very serious task, and sometimes, some serious tasks have to do with some serious words.

The following quote clarified that perspective for me, that the women may have wanted to hear more words about Jesus, and, more specifically, words in the Greek language. I was reading The Development of the New Testament Canon by William Farmer and came upon this statement which I had not heard before [and which may be termed ‘the Farmer Principle’—I have yet to find it articulated elsewhere]:

The first evident need for writing down the words of the Lord may have been in connection with the need for the oral tradition to be translated in a reliable way into languages other than that spoken by Jesus, or other than that spoken by Christian prophets speaking in the spirit and name of Jesus (published by Paulist Press, 1983; page 50).

Many have proposed that there was writing going on before this event in Acts 6, and that is certainly a possibility. But chapter 6 of the book of Acts may not only point out the growth of people within the Church, but also the growth of the written text. A reliable Greek text could be used to convey the events of a reliable Savior to the ‘overlooked’ (and ‘Greek’) widows. The Lord does not overlook anyone—even if they describe themselves with quotation marks! And we know what great growth would ultimately come from that undertaking of a written text. Thank God—the LORD—for the New Testament!

This Sunday is the Fourth Sunday of Easter, and one of the themes for this Sunday is Jesus as the Good Shepherd—it is a role he continues to have as our resurrected Lord. The coronavirus may be considered as sort of a ‘theme’ as well. And the more important theme of Acts 2 also continues this Sunday [the text is verses 42-47], and last week we looked at all the longer speeches in Acts that had 10 or more verses.

As I wrote last week, these speeches take a lot of room in the text. The focus is ultimately not meant to be getting across a lot of INFORMATION, but those longer speeches are given in an effort to be clear about what is most important, SALVATION. And within those speeches, there are some differences when it comes to salvation that are sometimes quickly passed over, but I think those differences are important and that it would be good to go over some of them.

One interesting thing is the way, in those first speeches, that Jesus’ actions are described on the cross. As was mentioned last week, there are five speeches of significant length before the Apostolic Council in Acts 15. The middle (or third) speech in Acts 7 was not to a friendly audience, and Jesus on the cross was barely mentioned in that text. But the other four all had very positive responses, and those descriptions of Jesus on the cross have some significant differences that are worth mentioning.Here are the phrases that talk about Jesus on the cross (with some very literal translations):

Acts 2…this one, by the fixed counsel and foreknowledge of God, he gave him up, through the hands of lawless ones, fastening, you took away his life (verse 23).

Acts 3But you yourselves denied the holy and just one, and you asked for a man, a murderer, to be granted to you, and the author of life you killed…(verses 14-15a).

Acts 10They indeed took away his life, hanging on a tree… (verse 39b).

Acts 13And when they finished all the things concerning him that were written, taking him down from the tree, they placed him into a tomb (verse 29).

First of all, it should be noted that one can easily tell which sermons had an audience of Jews and which had Gentiles—the first two sermons say basically that YOU killed Jesus, and the last two, that THEY killed Jesus. But it is more important to look at some of the diversity here in terms of the crucifixion description.

For such a central event as Jesus’ death on the cross, is such diversity a problem? I would think not. But it IS a problem for some. And the diversity that is seen in the four gospel accounts is also a significant problem for some. Why are the accounts so different if they are talking about the same Jesus?

This may sound a bit strange, but I see some connections between these four speeches and the four gospel accounts. What has helped me to make these connections is a book that has been published recently. It is a book is by Christian Schramm, Die Königmacher: Wie die synoptischen Evangelien Herrschaftslegitimierung betreiben. (Obviously it is in German, and THAT can be a problem for some, but it is not incredibly expensive for its language or length—452 pages. A theological library near you may have this; the publisher is Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, University of Bonn, 2019.)

In Schramm’s book, the three most similar gospel accounts, that of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are studied in respect to their differences, and the differences are attributed to a different aspect of kingship within the culture of that time (and especially within the Old Testament). In other words, each account is giving a slightly different emphasis on what it means for Jesus to be a king. (N.T. Wright does basically the same thing in his somewhat recent book, obviously in English, How God Became King: Getting to the Heart of the Gospels.)

Here are the basic specifics, and I am giving you the German description that Schramm gives [on the back cover of the book], since the words he chooses are quite similar to their English translations: The Gospel according to Matthew has a kingship that is ‘genealogisch-dynastisch’. The Gospel according to Mark has a kingship that is ‘aretologisch-charismatisch’. And the Gospel according to Luke has a kingship that is ‘religiös-theokratisch’. To be extremely brief, Matthew focuses on men, Mark focuses on Jesus, and Luke focuses on God. There are, of course, examples of these emphases, but there is not the space here to give them. And we can see those three emphases connect to the various speeches.

Here are the unique things of each speech being discussed:

Acts 2What is unique in this is, first of all, the contrast between the counsel and foreknowledge of God and what man does; and the focus ends up on man. When the topic of men are brought up, hands are specifically mentioned, and there is also the manual action of ‘fastening’. Jesus is very much a man in the Gospel according to Matthew, specifically a teacher, one who tells us the ‘counsel of God’, who also gives us some ‘laws’ (see Matthew 28:20), but the amazing thing is that he willingly puts himself into the ‘hands’ of lawless men.​Near the beginning of the Gospel according to Matthew, Jesus almost gets killed by Herod, and after Herod dies, he is in danger from the person who takes his place—certainly a terrible dynasty there! But he gets away from those difficult situations, that is, until he arrives at the most difficult situation of all, the cross.

Acts 3The description of Jesus as the ‘Author of life’ is very radical, and it is heightened by comparing Jesus to Barabbas, a murderer. (This, by the way, is the only way the Gospel according to Mark describes Barabbas; in the Gospel according to Matthew, he is simply ‘notorious’; in the Gospel according to Luke, he is connected to murder AND insurrection; and in the Gospel according to John, he is a robber.)

Jesus certainly stands out in the way he is depicted in the Gospel according to Mark. In that account, Jesus is pretty much alone; his disciples are not depicted as being too good at their jobs; they often did not get what was happening (see, for example, Mark 8:21). In this gospel account, there is also a comparison between King Herod and ‘King Jesus’. Herod falls short of being someone worth following when he kills John the Baptist, because of a promise made to a good dancer (see Mark 6:14-32).

Acts 10What is unique is that Jesus is described as ‘hanging’ on the cross. And only in the Gospel according to Luke is one of the two criminals described in this way (Luke 23:39). By simply describing Jesus being on the cross as ‘hanging’ there, the emphasis gets to be put upon God the Father’s part in all of this. And when the Son of God is put on the level of a criminal, that is something you would not expect. And Jesus, within the Gospel according to Luke, is on the level of the obedient servant to his Father in heaven (for an example of this, see Luke 2:49).

Acts 13The phrase ‘And when they finished all the things concerning him that were written…’ at first seems a little vague and significantly different from the other three descriptions. (And this gospel account is known to be significantly different from the others.) What is going on here? But when it says that ‘taking him down from the tree, they placed him into a tomb’, then it is clear that the speaker is referring to Jesus on the cross.

Within the Gospel according to John, there are a lot of Old Testament references that show that this time was predicted long ago and in many ways. (The account, in general, has a much bigger perspective than the others.) The Old Testament references are hinted at in the other accounts of the crucifixion (and in other times of Jesus’ life), but they are specifically mentioned in this account, and here they are:

19:24 The soldiers cast lots to fulfill scripture.

19:28 Jesus said ‘I thirst’ to fulfill scripture.

19:36 Jesus’ bones were not broken to fulfill scripture.

19:37 Jesus was pierced to fulfill scripture.

Why would there be a connection between the four accounts and the four sermons in the first part of Acts? These are not just four accounts and four sermons that were quickly and haphazardly put together. Again, the issue is an important one, SALVATION. Instead of simply thinking that a certain amount of information was available to the writer, we can think that each writer or speaker was given a certain aspect of kingship to emphasize. When the three synoptic accounts are so close together and basically emphasize different aspects—man, Jesus, and God—those are ALL the main components in that great story of salvation!

Both the speeches and the accounts work together well, and both groups bring to the early church an emphasis on the gospel—in the SINGULAR—of Jesus Christ. This word is very important in the book of Acts. Some people call the four gospel accounts a ‘fourfold gospel’; this keeps the word ‘gospel’ in the singular.

The four accounts and the four sermons have significant differences, and the codex (book) form makes them easier to compare, as we can do today. The somewhat diverse texts were meant to be compared in a positive way. Jesus as King is a significant, multi-faceted statement, and it has some various and significant ramifications.

Perhaps a bible study suggestion for this week would be to compare the following chapters which focus on Jesus’ crucifixion to see some of the different ways in which Jesus is a king over sin—Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, and John 19. If you desire, you may certainly go on to read the diversity within the resurrection accounts as well—this IS the Easter season after all. These may be seen as the ways in which Jesus is king over death.